California Supreme Court: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

The California Supreme Court issued its long anticipated same sex marriage opinion this morning. I will try and provide analysis and commentary on the opinion, not only my own, but from other, more knowledgeable sources as well. The initial opinion is now out, and it appears, shockingly, that the California Supreme Court has struck down the same sex marriage ban in California. Here’s the money quote from the end of the opinion: (Read the full opinion here: same-sex-marriage-opinion)

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, and the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco’s highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights. Several states have since passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Today, 27 states have such amendments.

After a month of jubilant same-sex weddings here, the California Supreme Court intervened and ordered the city to stop issuing licenses to gay couples. The court later invalidated the documents and declined to address the constitutionality of a state ban on same-sex marriage until lower courts acted first.

Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Only Massachusetts’ top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

I beg to differ, the ruling affects many, many more than just the supposed 100,000 same-sex couples in California. It affects every married couple not only in California, but likely around the country, as the State Supreme Court, has just redefined thousands of years of marriage both in theory and in practice.

Before today’s ruling, gay rights lawyers predicted that a victory in the California Supreme Court would help them defeat the proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, which the lawyers expect to qualify for the November ballot. A loss in the court would help the backers of the measure, they have said.

The California Supreme Court has six Republican appointees and one Democrat. Scholars have described the court under the leadership of Chief Justice Ronald M. George as cautious and moderately conservative.

Cautious and moderately conservative–wow–I would hate to see a reckless and activist court–though we just likely have.

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” the court said in a majority decision.

“Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”

Of course, we all need to read the actual opinion and then try to sort out the court’s analysis; but, I have to say, I am quite shocked at the court’s ruling this morning. I’ve only skimmed the dissents, it was a 4-3 decision, but, it’s clear from the dissents, I am not the only one shocked by this far reaching, sweeping opinion re-defining the entire institution of marriage. Once I have read the opinion, assuming I have time, I will try and post my further thoughts and analysis on the court’s legal basis, and reasoning.

For an understanding of the underlying judicial history on this case, please see my older post over at the Bloggernacle Times. It outlines how the case got to the appellate level, and also provides an analysis of the appellate court’s decision, which I think was well reasoned and the right conclusion. Unfortunately, (or fortunately depending on your point of view) mine is not the ultimate voice on appellate law in California. That belongs to the California Supreme Court, and now they have spoken. It will be interesting to see how this will play out over the election season, as I understand there is a drive to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, which would essentially throw out this particular decision. Frankly, its the only way I see a return to traditional marriage.

It will also be interesting to see the Church’s response, if any. You may recall the Church took an active stance in Proposition 22, back when, which dealt with strengthening traditional marriage in California. And, we know the Church took an active role in filing briefs in this California case for the California Supreme Court to consider in its analysis of the issues.

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman.

“There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference,” said the 120-page ruling.

It said that the state law’s language “limiting the designation of marriage to a ‘union between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

With the ruling, California becomes the second state to allow same-sex couples to legally wed. Massachusetts adopted the practice in 2004, and couples don’t need to be state residents to wed there.

At the end of CNN’S report, there is a line that says:

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage

I disagree. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is actually unlikely. From what I have read, it appears that this case was decided on the basis of California’s Constitution. The analysis and constitutional standards applied were those of the State of California. I do not believe the California Supreme Court was deciding an issue of federal constitutional law, rather a state constitutional issue. On California state constitutional issues, it is the California Supreme Court which has the last say, not the United States Supreme Court.

Not what I said Nick. I said I had only skimmed the dissents–I didn’t say I had not also skimmed the majority, which obviously I did since I quoted the money quote. But, it will be an interesting opinion from a legal and public policy standpoint. And, frankly, this opinion may have much more impact on the future analysis of same sex marriage, given California’s leadership role in cutting edge legal theory.

Why are you shocked by this decision? I’m just curious. You didn’t see it coming? The argument is a very good one. Why should gays and lesbians be considered “second class citizens” in terms of the services provided to them by the state? It is not the business of the state to determine who can be with whom (and as such, I prefer that marriages be returned back to religions to manage and the state manage things on an individual level rather than a familial level). It is not the business of the state to direct people’s lives. That again, belongs to religions. Frankly, I see no problem in this ruling, based on how the laws are set up.

Dan, Briefly, I’m shocked because historically there has never been a fundamental right to same sex marriage. Now, I have not read in depth the court’s opinion yet, so I will have to do that before I can really comment intelligently on its legal analysis; however, if you read the underlying appellate court’s ruling and analysis on this case, you will get a flavor of my legal thinking on the issue. I felt the lower appellate court had a very good and sound legal basis and analysis.

I’ll know more after I have had a chance to digest the court’s opinion.

I bet they will not get involved. I think they have removed themselves from the state debates recently.
They were all over the discussion here in NH back in 2000-2003 or so when the subject came up in the legislature. Our stake president even asked for quotas from wards/branches to rally at the state house. When the issue came up again in 2006-7, I did not hear one word again from the pulpit (as we had heard before). The NH senate, house and governor then approved same sex unions (without threats from the court).

Over on Bloggernacle Times, you linked to a Volokh Conspiracy post about “slippery slopes” in terms of gay rights. One of the commentators there had the following to say:

I am not sure what the slippery slope is in this context. Certainly, for most people in this debate, the reference to a slippery slope is the “demise of marriage” and consequently the downfall of the American social fabric.

Perhaps, evolution is a better way of describing this “development”. I understand all of the legislative arguments, but how does one craft a remedy for discrimination without telling the legislature what to do? If there is an institutional discrimination which is evident in a whole range of laws, is the only remedy for the discriminated individual to petition his legislators? And if this individual is a minority . . . ?

Let’s take this out of the charged atmosphere of the culture wars:

I set up a foundation that gives aid to drug addicts but can find no public funding, yet every religious group doing the same service receives money. Let’s say that I re-define my foundation and become born again. Suddenly I am funded. Is there any Constitutional problem with this? Do I have recourse? And is my only recourse statutory and not Constitutional?

On the one hand the argument is that the government has a legitimate right to support marriage and grant certain rights to support the “institution”. Yet can the government support any “institution” that is inherently discriminatory, i.e. defined as heterosexual? Is this really a legislative problem or merely old common law ideas bumping their heads into a new fangled conception of government call the US Constitution?

It is obvious where I fall in this debate; but I do not think that all of this talk about “textualism” and judicial “legislation” is in good faith. There are many, many places where “tradition” was expressly thrown out the window by the Founders. It is only present day “purists” who seem to find the language of the Constitution so confining and rigid. The Founders expressly wanted a rational system of government to be limited in its power and granted the individual citizens a universe of rights. That tradition may have provided certain privileges and rights to certain individuals is directly in opposition to this principle. And yet here we go again with the slippery slope.

The slippery slope I am concerned about is the grant of despotic powers to the executive branch of this government. But a decision by a State Supreme Court saying that the government is giving one set of citizens rights and denying them to other similarly situated citizens . . . this I do not find so controversial. The “libertarian” response should be that the government get out of the marriage business. And that would be a rational and reasoned position that comports with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. But of course it would mean repealling all of those laws that do favor heterosexuals. And there’s the real rub.

I’m shocked because historically there has never been a fundamental right to same sex marriage.

As any good lawyer knows, much depends on the framing of the question. If the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Loving on whether there was a “fundamental right for African American persons to marry caucasian persons,” laws would still be standing to ban interracial heterosexual marriage. Today, the California Supreme Court (rightly, IMO) properly examined the issue in light of the fundamental right to marry, rather than (unjustly, IMO) parsing it out as a question of whether there was a “fundamental right to same sex marriage.”

Keep in mind that previous to the 1820s none but the noble class had rights to vote, none but white landowners had rights to vote. Keep in mind that before the early 20th century, women did not have many legal rights. Should we have repealed all those simply because there was no precedent?

As that commentator said so clearly, the real rub is that most laws set up by our governments favor heterosexuals at the expense of homosexuals, simply based on the difference which homosexuals really had little say in. As science is showing us (though not definitive at this point), gays don’t really choose to be gay. Just like heterosexuals don’t choose to be heterosexual. Yet we provide the laws to favor us and not them. Something is wrong in that picture. And frankly, providing them the same legal rights that we have has absolutely no bearing on our heterosexual relationships. It matters not one iota to my marriage to my wife what my homosexual next-door neighbor does (my real next door neighbor isn’t homosexual, but just anyone out there). It really doesn’t matter at all.

I would hope that the leadership of the LDS church concludes at some point that the millions of dollars they’ve spent in efforts to limit the civil rights of U.S. citizens who are not LDS was a fruitless and unwise expenditure. When you look at all the social issues that the LDS church could invest their time and money into (abortion, for example?), it’s simply amazing that they persist in concentrating so many resources on attacking gay families.

David H. Sundwall
I was trying (poorly) to chime in if the Church would become involved in the upcoming CA ballot initiative. As I mentioned, I saw no Church involvement in the 2006-7 NH activities, as opposed to heavy involvement just a couple of years earlier. Now I concede CA is a much larger fish than NH.

How does allowing two men or two women to marry each other destroy traditional marriage? I am genuinely trying to understand why it matters to heterosexual couples and why so many people are afraid and angry.

It’s all a matter of precedent. If homosexual marriage cannot be banned, then that means it must be guaranteed by the Constitution. And if gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, then denying any homosexual couple the “right” to a marriage becomes a crime. Any institution–like the LDS Church–that does not wish to join homosexuals in marriage would no longer have a choice in the matter.

Actually that is not correct. Religiously speaking, the LDS church is private and can exclude anyone they want from membership, including from marriages. They do so now without any legal recourse against the church. Right now the church has absolute rights as to who can get a temple marriage. They set whatever standards they want for temple marriages, and the state can say nothing about it. Heck, the church can excommunicate whoever it wants for whatever reasons it wants. This particular ruling will have absolutely no effect on the church from a legal standpoint.

Paradox, while I can’t speak for homosexuals as some sort of monolithic block, it’s my experience that most of us have absolutely no interest in forcing any religious group to accept, let alone conduct, same-sex marriages. Rather, we just want religious groups to leave us alone, and quit trying to limit our legal rights by imposing their beliefs on the larger society.

The legal problem is very clear. If it is a fundamental legal right to homosexual marriage, then LDS Social Services will be banned as a State recognized adoption agenchy because it properly denies homosexual couples the right to adopt given LDS commitments. The Church’s ability to have any tax benefits for tithing or even tax exempt property could also be affected because it refused to recognize this fundamental right.

I believe that Nick is just in error about the effect of finding a fundamental legal right to marry. Even his statement that he wants to be left alone speaks volumes. Groups like the Boy Scouts have been excluded from any governmental funding on par with other groups, and the notion that homosexuals just want to be left alone flies in the face of their activism within the Church to meet with GAs. Now I state all of this recognizing that many of my friends have chose to be gay and lesbian.

The fact is that sexual orientation is a continuum with the vast majority able to decide which way to go – only the extreme ends of the spectrum cannot choose. Of course homosexuals would like to be exonerated for their choices — but that also demeans them because it means that they wouldn’t choose such a “lifestyle” if they had a choice.

At the fundamental level of whether we engage in sexual conduct, we all have the same challenges and choices. Is celibacy a legitimate request of those on the far end of the spectrum who cannot choose regarding their orientation? Why not?

The unconstitutionality of the CA SC ruling is because of our nation’s natural law basis. All of the arguments pro-gay are wrong because this national law philosophy evident in the Declaration and the founding of most, if not all states, is what civil rights law and the 14th-15th amendments were based on. Gay equal is a farce of justice and the 4 special interest judges and all others like them should impeached.

Iowa has attempted it but I have not heard what has happened since. Their actions show Americans still believe in the rule of law and its moral basis and the freedom we have long enjoyed. Rights derived from that freedom were given by God according to Thomas Jefferson, but state officials serving gay interests are beginning to violate our rights, the freedom and law they are based on.

A positive note is that the opinion of the RINO justices is just that an OPINION. The people and their legislators have the final say. The remedy for arrogant lawyers in black robes is again impeachment–addios ammigos.

Dan #4. If you read my latest post of my analysis I think that will probably answer your question. If not, let me know and I’ll try it again.

Aluwid: Thanks for the link. I put it in my latest analysis post on this case.

Chas: They did issue a statement, which I linked to in my latest post.

Daniel #20, Unfortunately this opinion carries weight, not only in California, but likely throughout the United States as the issue presents itself. We shall see.

green mormon: I’n neither afraid or angry; however, I don’t feel the gay marriage movement has any legal right to change wholesale the definition of marriage for the entire society, absent their ability to do so at the ballot box.
Blake, Interesting take. Thanks for your comment.

Paradox, Thanks for stopping by and for your support of these issues.

Nick, #9 You and I have covered this ground before. I’m quite certain we will end up agreeing to disagree.

Dan #10 There are certain fundamental rights, which I discuss in my latest post. Same-sex marriage has never been considered a fundamental right in California; however, voting and property ownership are different by a great degree

I realize the errors in the viewpoint I presented, which is why I don’t agree with it personally. I was simply answering a question;)

But the way I see it, if someone can sue McDonalds because the food they sell is unhealthy, I’m wondering whether or not someone would attempt to make a legal claim against the Church’s stance on homosexuality.

As we’ve seen in the past couple of months with lawsuits and court cases, there’s no glass ceiling to them.

Blake wrote:
The legal problem is very clear. If it is a fundamental legal right to homosexual marriage, then LDS Social Services will be banned as a State recognized adoption agenchy because it properly denies homosexual couples the right to adopt given LDS commitments. The Church’s ability to have any tax benefits for tithing or even tax exempt property could also be affected because it refused to recognize this fundamental right.

You might add that BYU could lose both its tax-exempt status and accreditation under the scenario you describe.

Paradox, You are definitely right about one thing. Once you get into litigation–you lose complete control, and the end result may be 180 degrees opposite of what you think or hope for. There is absolutely no ceiling–glass or otherwise for some.

Paul, Interesting. Of course the fundamental right only exists in two states for the moment, and sexual orientation is a constitutionally protected class I think only in CA–but maybe MA too–I’d have to re-read the opinion. I can’t see Utah’s Supreme Court running off the deep end like California’s did.

Guy Murray wrote: Of course the fundamental right only exists in two states for the moment, and sexual orientation is a constitutionally protected class I think only in CA–but maybe MA too–I’d have to re-read the opinion. I can’t see Utah’s Supreme Court running off the deep end like California’s did.

Will the federal courts rule that under the full faith and credit clause, gay marriages performed in one state must be recognized in others?

Even if the courts or legislatures do not impose gay marriage everywhere, I see another danger to religious educational institutions such as BYU: Accreditation could be denied if the university is found to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

For instance, the American Bar Association recently added sexual orientation and gender identity to their anti-discrimination policy, which previously had listed minorities, women and people with disabilities. The ABA has already threatened to withhold accreditation from law schools that are deemed to be insufficiently diverse.

In the past, the BYU Law School could simply require compliance with the Honor Code, which states that “sexual relationships outside the covenant of marriage are inappropriate.” BYU could argue that such a requirement was not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation because it applies equally to everyone, gay or straight.

If gay marriage were legalized, however, BYU would have a difficult choice: either recognize legal homosexual marriages or amend the Honor Code to explicitly exclude such unions. The former would be difficult if not impossible for the Church to accept; the latter would put BYU at odds with the accreditation agencies.

Personally, I do not care whether gays marry. However, I do care whether gay marriage is to be used as a sledgehammer against my religious freedom.

In the Book of Mormon when the voice of the people decided they no longer wanted to be ruled by a democratically elected government, the government changed.

In California the voice of the people came out overwhelmingly against recognizing same-sex marriage. To disregard the voice of the people will breed contempt for government, as if we needed more of that, and will lead to the breakdown of society.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined with the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wrote a brief for the court that is discussed on my blog where they articulately argued this point and California’s past judicial philosophy to follow the will of the people.

The overturning the will of the people will prove to be a sad day in history.

Kudos to the CA Supreme Court. Funny how if you disagree with a court decision you use a term like “activist” court. But, on the otherhand, if you agree, then everything is hunky-dorrie.

I still ask how a gay couple getting married can harm a hetero-marriage. But, I’ve noticed that nobody ever attempts to give a valid answer to that question. Face it, the constitution give equal rights and access to the benefits of the law to all, not just to white heterosexual men and to whomever they choose to throw their crumbs too. The constitution says ALL. Enough said

Proposition 22, which defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and adopted by California voters on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor, was hijacked along with the California Legislative Branch by the Tyrannical Justices of the California Supreme Court which legislated from the bench in direct violation of the California Constitution and managed to null the will of the people and declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional. It only took four tyrannical traitors to wrest the will of the citizen of California, these four judges are either being bribed, or blackmailed by the degenerates or they are homosexuals themselves.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said: “In light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

The black robed tyrants had the audacity and the recklessness to stick their tongues to the majority of California voters and without an ounce of shame declared that a marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, but marriage between a man and a woman becomes constitutional when coupled with same-sex couples, what a bunch of crap, these judges must believe that the California populace are nothing more than a bunch of moronic retards.

The people of California must demand the heads of these tyrants, they should be unceremoniously thrown out of the California Supreme Court and they should be forced to sweep the street of San Francisco for the rest of their wretched lives.

If unrestrained, someday in the near future these dishonorable black robed tyrants will grant the salivating perverts in a silver platter the age of consent lowered to eight years of age. Eureka, now the degenerates will be free to marry innocent little boys, which would be the pinnacle of all perversions, and also would open the doors to all kinds of unimaginable atrocities. How would you react Mom, Dad when someday Johnny, your little nine years old says to you? Good old Fred our next-door neighbor and I are getting married. It will happen very soon, check it out at http://www.nambla.org the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Americans must reintroduce the Word of God in Public Education, also they must reverse legalized “premeditated murder” on demand, and they must agree with God with one mind and write it into the law of the land that homosexuality is an abomination and by overthrowing Executive Order 13087 signed by President Clinton, who with Bible in hand bypassed the U.S. Congress and the populace and inflicted on society one of the many things God abhors the most, cramming homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered in the federal and civilian workforce, in an attempt to normalize what once was cosidered an immoral and filthy addiction. Homosexuals must also be prevented from corrupting the minds of the youth, therefore they must be prohibited to adopt, coach, teach or have any direct contact with children, and they must be redirected back to the closets they came from, where most appropriately belong.

[…] that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a […]

“I still ask how a gay couple getting married can harm a hetero-marriage. But, I’ve noticed that nobody ever attempts to give a valid answer to that question.”

I’m not sure what your definition of a “Valid” answer is… but if there is any God fearing in you at all, if you believe at all that you are a literal child of God, that he created you in his image, and wants you to be happy in this life, and return to live with him forever… I testify that you are and that he does… this should suffice.

Genesis 19 explains some of the sins Sodom and Gomorrha committed that made God destroy those cities.

Verse 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (Know is used both in Hebrew and English in this kind of context as a euphemism in place of a sexual word) them.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh (referring to homosexuality), are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

They state “We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

The very act of homosexuality is contrary to God’s will for his children. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God, anything else in un-natural (Not how God intended) and degrades the God given definition of a family. But not just the definition… the fundamental building block of our society, the family. Bringing upon us the foretold calamities… which does affect my “hetro-marriage” and family.

There is a fundamental right to marry if one is to believe the finding in Perez interracial marriage case (1948). However, if there is a fundamental right to marry the California Supreme Court has just denied that right to its citizens. Check it out: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/news/Pages/Update05-08.aspx

California refuses to recognize that when a man and woman marry they become “husband” and “wife.” The court never used the words “redefining marriage” except in the dissent. The court demands that marriage be inclusive, but nowhere explains how a same couple can become man and wife. Instead of expanding marriage (which of course is impossible), the court has made a definition of marriage that is gender neutral. Since there is no such thing as a “gender-neutral” marriage… since, in fact, it is through marriage that men and women become husband and wife… the court has banned marriage in California. Nor was the legislature consulted, nor were the lawful hearings required before issuing to licenses carried out. This is not a liberal, activist court. This is a monkey court.

It is not marriage that is imperiled. Marriage has been banned, but marriage is in no danger. It is as immutable as the invisible laws that govern the tides. What is in great peril is our liberty. In California our government is gone. Are there men and women with the courage to reclaim it? From the utter silence of the media and the utter confusion of the bedazzled masses, one must suspect the answer is ‘no.’ I pray God Almighty, the fortress of the free, that I am wrong about the hearts of my countrymen.

I must respond to hnrast (comment # 28)
hnrast wrote:
“he black robed tyrants… declared that a marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional”

That is not at all what the Justice Ronald said. He said, “the LANGAUGE of section 300 LIMITING the DESIGNATION of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional”

Obviously a hetero-sexual marriage is NOT unconstitutional. What is however, is the Section 300 which discriminates against tax paying and law abiding Citizens.

Hnrast, you also said, “Americans must reintroduce the Word of God in Public Education, also they must reverse legalized “premeditated murder” on demand, and they must agree with God with one mind and write it into the law of the land that”

that is probably the most outrageous thing I’ve read on the internet today… You can’t force your religion and your morals on to other people. Our government should have no say on religious matters. And equally so, if not more important, Religion should have no say in how our government operates.

Thomas Jefferson said. “with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Now, granted Thomas Jefferson may have been a God Fearing man but he was still wise enough to understand that plenty of his fellow countrymen are not.

Also the argument that allowing gays to marry would lead to lowering the age of consent is preposterous. just because there is a webiste for homosexual pedophiles doesnt mean all homosexuals are pedophiles. there are plenty of straight ones too.

Why does everyone have to tell people what to do? Not that I need to see the gay lifestyle in front of my eyes but it’s nobodys business what people want to do behind closed doors. Consenting adults. Leave them alone